Jump to content

Intrepid

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Intrepid

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It would still be prudent to do the necessary research on these forums and else where to see what has been awarded in the past and whether in this case the statuatory breach is comparable or more egregous when compared to what was awarded in other succesful claims. One of the first hits on google is on a website duly named data breach compensation which leads to an address of a solicitors. They indicate that low risk breaches typically settle for between £750 and £1000. Again I would stress the importance of researching similar cases so that answering the reasonable que
  2. Is there any reason to be so conservative, other posters have indicated the "going rate" for compensation awarded in relation to a breach of GDPR is £500. I would move that if the breach of statuatory duty has led to further distress beyond simply that of having ones rights denied the amount claimed can be justified. In this case the breach of statuatory duty could easily lead to the op undergoing further distress due to lacking the necessary information to dismiss an unsubstantiated debt, information which should have been readily available. In any case the experienced
  3. Any claim that the lack of readings are relevant is a strawman to the fact GNE deliberately disregarded information they requesteed, were provided with and were contractually obliged to use for billing. In addition regardless of what the initial meter reading is, it should have little to no bearing on the billing of future consumption save to change the total readings on the bill. GNE did not require further readings to reasonably estimate consumption for electricity. GNE could quite easily have collected the data they claim they required at any point and as per their contractual obligati
  4. If as you said Npower did not indicate why they prevented the switch then my line of thinking is that it appears Npower had no legitimate reason to prevent a supplier switch. As a result I think it would be relatively straight forward to insist they are liable for any losses you incurred as a result. They will likely try and push liability onto the previous supplier for not re-instigating a switch and as a result yourself for not following up if they had done so, however if they should have accepted the switch in the first place this is all mute. Their likely excuse for denying the
  5. Have Npower indicated why they rejected the switching of electricity to Iresa, what changed that Npower then later decided they would accept the switch?
  6. In case it was missed earlier in this thread and notwithstanding GNE's billing practice I am satisfied that there is not sufficient cause for action regarding any breach of GDPR. Nothing was witheld. For the avoidance of doubt I provided them with everything that was requested and required up to the point the contract was breached, thereafter I rightfully insisted on enforcing the contract at no further cost or inconvenience to myself. The breach was in my opinion sufficiently egregious that I was under no further obligation to perform any duties as outlined in the contract.
  7. It's still unclear why you wish to focus on one party's actions in complete disregard of the other. I think repeatedly stating things which are readily available to read in this thread is a dead end. I will update this thread with the Ombudsman outcome for the benefit of others who receive egrigious billing from an energy supplier that ignores complaints and takes no action. I welcome comment from others more readily able to remain focussed and impartial.
  8. I'm not sure what you mean by this but it doesn't really add anything useful to the discussion. Perhaps as you were not the one that received the bill for £2500 you see no problem with GNE's conduct but something smells here as a site administrator of a website duly named consumer action group that you wish to dismiss the actions of an energy company in a position of unequal power and denigrate the actions of the consumer. It smacks of some bizarre bias for reasons only known to yourself and for which I see no obvious explanation. I sense you are a strong advocator
  9. I must have failed to get the point across, I did send them an accurate reading and they willfully disregarded it in favour of erroneous billing and in direct breach of clause 2.2 of their terms and conditions. Subsequently I have no confidence of sending them further information when I have already sent them what they initally requested to have them deliberately disregard it. It is a waste of my time and should they require such information in future they should be required to collect it having failed to perform to the standards of the contract the onus is strictly upon them to re
  10. I think you're getting distracted from the core issue. GNE wanted to read the meter, they also indicate in their terms and conditions they will aim to do so regardless of the reasons why. Clearly as a second rate supplier they do not employ their own engineers to carry out such a task and contract it to a third party, fine, they choose how to operate their business. In the years gone by whenever an energy supplier has decided to take meter readings whomever is carrying out the task has never attempted to repeatedly call me they simply carried out their contractual obligation as is
  11. How are Lowri Beck not a third party in this case, even GNE admit to them being so. Third Party - "a person or group besides the two primarily involved in a situation, especially a dispute."
  12. Yes obviously they are entitled to subcontract tasks, the question is are subcontractors entitled to contact if they have no need to? This seems to be a complete u-turn on your previous policy of not engaging with third parties.
  13. I have not seen the contract between them but presume Lowri Beck were contracted to read my meter. Lowri Beck proceeded to repeatedly ring me asking me to carry out the task of reading the meter which I presume is what they were supposed to be doing and were being paid for it. GNE terms and conditions state they will not pass on details to a third party for independent use in line with GDPR regulations, so I believe any cause for breach would hinge on whether Lowri Beck should have been calling me and whether the purpose of the call falls under the definition of indepen
  14. Green Network Energy passed my details to a third party who then repeatedly called me to carry out a task they had been contracted to complete. I maintain they had no right to contact me as part of their contractual obligations and GNE should not be passing my data to a third party. The data protection team of GNE initially denied passing my details to a third party before they were directly asked about their relationship with the company Lowri Beck. I am considering a claim for breach of GDPR. Any experienced caggers think the cause for action is sufficient
  15. Update 07/11/20 GNE attempted twice to have the complaint dismissed by the Ombudsman, one attempt to dismiss the complaint used false and misleading information, both attempts have been unsuccessful. I have substantial evidence that GNE have lied to the Ombudsman on two occasions in a deliberate attempt to mislead them, should this affect any judgement of the case by the Ombudsman then in all likelihood I will reject the decision of the Ombudsman and continue a claim in the courts. The fact that GNE have deliberately mislead the ADR service combined with the fact they deliberatel
×
×
  • Create New...